alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStatic Wind-Tunnel and Radio-Controlled Flight Test Investigation of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle Having a Delta Wing PlanformAt the request of the United States Marine Corps, an exploratory wind-tunnel and flight test investigation was conducted by the Flight Dynamics Branch at the NASA Langley Research Center to improve the stability, controllability, and general flight characteristics of the Marine Corps Exdrone RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle) configuration. Static wind tunnel tests were conducted in the Langley 12 foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel to identify and improve the stability and control characteristics of the vehicle. The wind tunnel test resulted in several configuration modifications which included increased elevator size, increased vertical tail size and tail moment arm, increased rudder size and aileron size, the addition of vertical wing tip fins, and the addition of leading-edge droops on the outboard wing panel to improve stall departure resistance. Flight tests of the modified configuration were conducted at the NASA Plum Tree Test Site to provide a qualitative evaluation of the flight characteristics of the modified configuration.Document ID19900014922Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsYip, Long P.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Fratello, David J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Robelen, David B.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Makowiec, George M.*(Vigyan Research Associates, Inc., Hampton VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-4200NAS 1.15:4200L-16742Accession Number90N24238Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-71-69Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014922.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 350.221 How long are MCSAP funds available to a State?

MCSAP funds obligated to a State will remain available for the Federal fiscal year that the funds are obligated and the next 2 full Federal fiscal years.

[85 FR 37796, June 24, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 59035, Sept. 29, 2022]
#### § 26.25 What is the requirement for a liaison officer?

You must have a DBE liaison officer, who shall have direct, independent access to your Chief Executive Officer concerning DBE program matters. The liaison officer shall be responsible for implementing all aspects of your DBE program. You must also have adequate staff to administer the program in compliance with this part.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-07-426-CR

DONALD SHIRLEY	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Donald Shirley appeals from the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision.  Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of less than one gram of cocaine in October 1999 in accordance with a plea bargain, and the trial court placed him on four years’ deferred adjudication community supervision.  The State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication in October 2001, asserting that Appellant had failed to report to the community supervision office for the prior fifteen months.  Six years later, on November 9, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition, found that Appellant had violated the terms of community supervision, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. 

	In his second point, Appellant argues that he established a prima facie defense of lack of due diligence and that the State failed to rebut the defense.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 24 (Vernon Supp. 2007) (providing an affirmative defense to revocation of community supervision for failure to report when an officer with the power of arrest under a warrant issued for the alleged violation fails to contact or attempt to contact the defendant in person at the defendant’s last known address or place of employment).  The State has filed a letter brief conceding that Appellant’s second point is meritorious and joining Appellant’s prayer to reverse his conviction and sentence and remand the case to the trial court.

	We therefore sustain Appellant’s second point and, without considering his first point,2 reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d), 47.1.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  April 10, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, August 29, 2007, at 2:30 p.m.

# PLACE:

Commission Conference Room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Consideration of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 budgets; Selection of vice chairman.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

Dated: August 24, 2007.

Steven W. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-4254 Filed 8-24-07; 4:42 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
§ 383.31 Notification of convictions for driver violations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person who operates a commercial motor vehicle, who has a commercial learner's permit or commercial driver's license issued by a State or jurisdiction, and who is convicted of violating, in any type of motor vehicle, a State or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control (other than a parking violation) in a State or jurisdiction other than the one which issued his/her permit or license, shall notify an official designated by the State or jurisdiction which issued such permit or license, of such conviction. The notification must be made within 30 days after the date that the person has been convicted.
( b ) Each person who operates a commercial motor vehicle, who has a commercial driver's license issued by a State or jurisdiction, and who is convicted of violating, in any type of motor vehicle, a State or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control (other than a parking violation), shall notify his/her current employer of such conviction. The notification must be made within 30 days after the date that the person has been convicted. If the driver is not currently employed, he/she must notify the State or jurisdiction which issued the license according to § 383.31(a).
( c ) *Notification.* The notification to the State official and employer must be made in writing and contain the following information: ( 1 ) Driver's full name;
( 2 ) Driver's license number;
( 3 ) Date of conviction;
( 4 ) The specific criminal or other offense(s), serious traffic violation(s), and other violation(s) of State or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control, for which the person was convicted and any suspension, revocation, or cancellation of certain driving privileges which resulted from such conviction(s);
( 5 ) Indication whether the violation was in a commercial motor vehicle;
( 6 ) Location of offense; and
( 7 ) Driver's signature.
( d ) A person is considered to be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the conviction occurs in a State or jurisdiction that is in substantial compliance with 49 CFR 384.209 and has not been de-certified in accordance with 49 CFR 384.405.
[52 FR 20587, June 1, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 40787, Oct. 3, 1989; 78 FR 24688, Apr. 26, 2013]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 8/31/15 

Received: August 28, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8kt7-jfv2

Comments Due: September 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule- Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-4966

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I fully support the proposed rule. I am a life long investor and am currently retired. One of the 

most challenging aspects of managing my investments over the years has been the inability to 

determine if a recommended product was the best choice for me or was rather just suitable and 

better for compensating the advisor. Over the years, the professionals have used a variety of 

ways to explain and portray products and services as being in the best interests of the client. My 

personal experience has shown that this representation has largely been false and misleading. I 

believe that your proposed rule will clarify and make more trustworthy the services offered for 

the investing individual. Most people don't have the resources or time to become competent in 

the nuanced meanings of the many certifications and terminology that are used by professionals 

in order to confer a picture of competence and trust. An example of this would be the use of the 

terms "Fee Only" versus "Fee Based". I am a rather experienced investor and it took me some 

time to see that one of these terms would indeed be a fiduciary interest while the other not 

necessarily so. This is just an example of how the industry slants their operations to mislead and 

abuse the trust with their clients. With the proposed rule an individual can be more confident that 

if anything is proposed that it will, indeed, meet the true criteria that it be in their best interests 

rather than just being suitable and enriching the financial advisor and his firm to the 

disadvantage of the client. This rule is needed badly. Thanks to Jack Bogle, the Vanguard 

founder, it has become clear how high fees and costs can cripple the ability of individuals trying 
to save for their retirement. I wish it had been in place for me during my lifetime. Thank you for 

taking my comment.
1210-AB32-2-1406.html[7/26/2015 4:28:10 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw3-68ni

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1902

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: george Horenberger

General Comment

why does the gov have to control everything?iam so tired of big gov.Can some one get gov out of my pocket
IV

House Calendar No. 105

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 306

[Report No. 107–323]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3005) to extend trade authorities

procedures with respect to reciprocal trade agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3005) to extend

trade authorities procedures with respect to reciprocal

trade agreements.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3005) to

4 extend trade authorities procedures with respect to recip5 rocal trade agreements. The bill shall be considered as

6 read for amendment. The amendment recommended by

7 the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the
2

HRES 306 RH

1 bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of

2 the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution,

3 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall

4 be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final

5 passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour

6 of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and con7 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

8 the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion

9 to recommit with or without instructions.

House Calendar No. 105

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 306

[Report No. 107–323]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3005)

to extend trade authorities procedures with respect to reciprocal trade agreements.

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Seventh Amendment to Purchase Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.51 
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This Seventh Amendment to Purchase Agreement
(“Amendment”) is made by and between the Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company (“Purchaser”) and Buckley Properties Co. (“Seller”) under the following circumstances: 
 A. Purchase and Seller are parties to that certain Purchase Agreement dated September 6, 2005 (“Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to which
Seller agreed to sell, and Purchaser agreed to purchase, certain real property more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement, all upon the terms and conditions contained therein; 
 B. Pursuant to Section 8(d) through (h) of the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser’s obligation to close the transaction contemplated by the
Purchase Agreement is subject to certain contingencies, none of which have occurred; and 
 C. Purchaser and Seller heretofore amended the
Purchase Agreement by written amendments dated November 15, 2005, November 30, 2005, December 15, 2005, January 13, 2006, February 1, 2006 and February 15, 2006; and 
 D. Purchaser and Seller each desire to enter into this Seventh Amendment to extend the period of time within which Purchaser may satisfy the contingencies contained in Section 8(d) through (h) of the
Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Purchase and Seller hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Purchaser waives the contingencies contained in Sections 8(a), (b), and (c) of the Purchase Agreement, provided Seller cures Purchaser’s objections contained in Purchaser’s correspondence dated October 20, 2005 and
October 21, 2005 to Purchaser’s sole satisfaction. 
 2. Section 4(a) of the Purchase Agreement as previously amended is
further amended by deleting the date “March 10, 2006” and replacing it with the date “March 29, 2006”, and any reference to “Closing” or “date of Closing” shall mean March 29, 2006. 
 3. The period of time in which Seller has to notify Purchaser of which matters it will cure and how of those previously objected to by Purchaser
following the Inspection Period, as set forth in the subject Agreement, is hereby further extended through March 29, 2006. 
 4. Except
as further amended, modified or altered hereby, the Purchase Agreement as heretofore amended is not otherwise amended, modified or altered, and each of the parties hereto ratifies, affirms and confirms each and every provision of the Purchase
Agreement, as amended hereby. 







 Dated this /8th/ day of March, 2006. 
  

			
	PURCHASER:
	
	The Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ L. John Bertoli, III

		 	L. John Bertoli, III, Vice President
	
	SELLER:
	
	Buckley Properties Co.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas Strotman

		 	Tom Strotman, Treasurer
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF PALMETTO BANCSHARES,INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

The undersigned, as the chief executiveofficer and chief accounting officer of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc., certify thatthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003,which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofPalmetto Bancshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no purchaseror seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon theforegoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update theforegoing certification except as required by law.
|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|

By:

/s/      L. Leon Patterson                           

 L. Leon Patterson

 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/      Paul W. Stringer                                 

 Paul W. Stringer

 President and Chief Operating Officer

(ChiefAccounting Officer)

Date:   November 14, 2003
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1342.html[7/22/2015 10:36:09 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvh-pvi6

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1342

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Thomas and Ruth Moon

Address:

7331 Crownpiece St

San Antonio, TX, 78240

Email: tlmoon@sbcglobal.net

General Comment

My wife and I agree that we are smart enough to plan for our own retirement. We do not need the Government

 involved in it.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0741 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Dr. Robert D Prall 

Address: 

Houston, TX, 77098 

Organization: Consulting Psychological Services 

General Comment 

I am supportive of most of the provisions of the interim final rules under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. These rules address many of 

the long-standing inequities in health insurance coverage of mental health care when compared to 

medical/surgical care that I have observed in the course of my 55 years in my mental health 

practice. As a WWII veteran, I am particularly aware of previous inequities. 

So, it appears that two areas must be clarified and more clearly specified in the final regulations to 

close loopholes that would permit widespread violation of the legislative intent of the Paul 

Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: 

I. Parity in scope of services between mental health/substance abuse services and 

medical/surgical services is required in the final regulations so that the intent of the Act will be 

achieved. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the Departments in the 

interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for MH/SUD must be 

comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both across and within each 

classification. 

II. I strongly support the application of parity requirements to both QTLs and NQTLs as being 

consistent with the Act and allowing for broad application of the parity requirement with regard to 

treatment limitations. However, in order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must 

specify more clearly that any NQTLs 

1. Applied by plans must be comparable for MH/SUD and medical surgical benefits 

2. For MH/SUD must be no more restrictive than NQTLs that are predominant across the broad 

range of medical/surgical benefits 

Thank you. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 04, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae5f0e 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

d0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142115(26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142115 COA: 298898 Kalamazoo CC: 2000-000617-FC JIMMY LEE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 29, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
§ 392.1 Scope of the rules in this part. ( a ) Every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.
( b ) The rules in this part do not apply to drivers of “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).
[53 FR 18057, May 19, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 38746, July 28, 1995; 81 FR 47721, July 22, 2016]